Patna High Court
Kumari Ranjana Ram vs Chancellor Of Patna University And Ors. on 23 March, 1968
Equivalent citations: 1968(16)BLJR932
JUDGMENT
S.C. Misra and P.K. Banerji, JJ.
1. The applicant applied for admission in 1967 session in the Prince of Wales Medical College, Patna. But the College authorities refused to admit her on the ground that the applicants, who were selected, were suprior to her in merit according to various clauses in the Ordinance issued by the Patna University Syndicate for admission of students to medical course (vide Annexure 'F' to the present application). Accordingly, the petitioner filed this application to this Court on the 5th January, 1968 for quashing the order of refusal passed by the authorities of the Medical College and also for striking down as invalid certain provisions of the Patna University Ordinance bearing on the question of admission of students to the Prince of Wales Medical College.
2. It is admitted that the applicant passed Higher Secondary Examination in science course having Biology as one of her subjects and was placed in the second division. It is stated that one Rashmi Rekha obtained only 45 to 46 per cent of marks but she was admitted, because she passed the Pre-University Examination of the Patna University, whereas the claim of the petitioner with much higher marks and having other qualifications including proficiency in sports and other academic attainments was ignored and she failed to secure admission into the aforesaid college.
3. Mr. C.K. Raman, on behalf of the petitioner, has drawn our attention, in this connection, to certain provisions of the Ordinance issued by the Patna University Syndicate in terms of Section 32 of the Patna University Act (Bihar Act III of 1962). It is not denied that if the provisions of the Ordinance were to be upheld as valid, the refusal of admission of the petitioner by the College authorities must be upheld as correct. The relevant provisions of the Ordinance to which our attention has been invited are given in Clause 2, which runs as follows:
(a) to students belonging to scheduled castes... 8 % of the seats.
(b) to students belonging to scheduled tribes... 7 % of the seats
(c) to students belonging to Backward classes...10 % of the seats.
(d) to women students.
20 % of the seats
(e) to students who are sportsmen and who in the opinion of the Principal of the College concerned on the approval of the Vice-Chancellor, have distinguished themselves as players or athletes even though they are not eligible to be included in the merit list of candidates for admission ...2 seats.
Sub-clause (f) of Clause 2, as it originally stood, has, however, been struck down, as held by this Court, in Umesh Chandra v. V.N. Singh 1967 B.L.J.R. 798, and, therefore, no reference is necessary to Sub-clause (i) of the Ordinance. No grievance has, however, been made in regard to the provisions of Clauses 3 and 4 of the Ordinance.
4. Reference is next made to Clause 5 which provides as follows:
The admission to the Medical course shall be subject to the following restrictions and condition:
(1) List of eligible candidates shall be prepared in the following order each in order of merit and the admission shall be regulated accord-
(a) 50 per cent of the total seats will be filled up from among the applicants who have passed the Pre-University Examination of the Patna University and have secured 45 per cent marks or above in the aggregate.
(b) The remaining seats will be filled up from among the applicants who have passed the Pre-University Examination of any of the Universities of Bihar including the Patna University or the Higher Secondary Examination of the Bihar School Examination Board or the Senior Cambridge Examination from a school in Bihar and have secured 45 per cent marks or above in the aggregate.
(ii) Admission of students under each category mentioned in Clause 2 shall be on the basis of merit inter se amongst the applicants of the particular category.
(iii) The number of reserved seats for the categories (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Clause 2 shall be reduced by the number of seats filled up by applicants of that category on the non-reserved seats under category (g) of Clause 2.
Clause 1 also may be referred to in so far as it has been made also the subject-matter of attack by learned Counsel for the petitioner. It runs thus:
Admission to the First Year Medical Course shall be made in order of merit on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained by the applicants of the Pre-University or Higher Secondary Examination or any other examination recognised by the Academic Council as equivalent thereto, calculated in the following manner:
The total marks of an applicant shall be the total of his marks obtained in English and in Modern Indian Language plus twice the marks obtained in Physics plus twice the marks obtained in the Chemistry plus twice the marks obtained in Biology.
Provided that in making the computation of total marks of applicants 2 percent of the aggregate marks shall be added to the total marks obtained by applicants who possess either A, or Al or B or B1 certificate of the N.C.C. by way of weightage for the said proficiency.
* * *
5. Mr. Raman's argument, in the first place, is that the provision as contained in Clause 5 Sub-clause (i)(a) of the Ordinance to the effect that 50 per cent of the total number of seats will be filled up from among the applicants who have passed the Pre-University Examination of the Patna University is arbitrary and without any rational basis. The Patna University is one of the four Universities in the State of Bihar, all of which are financially aided by the State of Bihar for their proper and efficient management. Accordingly, Sub-clause (a) should not have been there and the only provision in the Ordinance should have been that all the applicants for admission to the Medical Course in the Patna University-as is the position with regard to Medical Colleges at Darbhanga and Ranchi-will be regulated strictly in accordance with the marks obtained by them at the various examinations, passing of which is the minimum test for admission to Medical Course. The reservation of 50 per cent of total number of seats for those who pass the Pre-University Examination from the Patna University is a discrimination, and without any justification, in favour of the applicants who happen to take the examination of the Patna University at the Pre-University stage. Our attention, in this connection, has been drawn to a number of authorities as to what would constitute discrimination. In out opinion, no authority is directly relevant to throw light on this question; nevertheless, the general test in determining whether such law or rule or regulation is valid and sustainable would be whether any preferential treatment under it can be upheld as reasonable and that it is not palpably arbitrary. There can be no doubt that if the preferential treatment is for the benefit of a particular class, then this can be upheld as valid, as reasonable classification in the matter of social and cultural advancement of certain Section s of the community can not be struck down as unreasonable. Sub-clause (i)(a) of Clause 5 of the Ordinance also relates to students of the Patna University in general and can not be said to be preferential treatment of a kind which by itself would be characterised as unreasonable Sham Bhat v. Agricultural I.T. 6 A.I.R. 1963 S. C 591 at 594. Mr. Raman's argument is that the applicants who have passed Pre-University Examinations of the Universities of Bihar, Ranchi, or Bhagalpur, are hereby put on a lower footing and are discriminated against because of this provision of Sub-clause (i)(a) of Clause 5, and even if they obtain higher marks and are better qualified for admission, they can not be admitted, if the applicants of the Patna University passing Pre-University examination can be found to have obtained minimum percentage of marks being 45 per cent. Mr. B.C. Ghose, who appears on behalf of the University, has urged, however, that this is hardly a ground for questioning the propriety of Sub-clause (i)(a) of Clause 5 of the Ordinance. The mode of admission to colleges in the Patna University at the Pre-University stage is that boys are admitted strictly in accordance with the marks obtained by them at the Secondary examination and at that stage there is no discrimination of any kind against any applicant. Once, however, they are admitted to the Pre-University course, the Patna University being a teaching and residential University, it is only appropriate that students who are benefited by a particular course of study at the Patna University, should have some seats reserved for them in preference to boys who have passed Pre-University or equivalent examination from any other University or Institution other than the Patna University. Mr. Ghose, in this connection, has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore 1964 S.C.R. 368. That was a case directed against the order passed by the Government of Mysore for admission of students of backward classes to professional and technical colleges on a certain basis including viva voce test, apart from the marks obtained by candidates at the written examination qualifying them for admission to the institutions. Although the impugned order in that case was not passed by the University, but by the Government, occasion arose in that case for the learned Judges of the Supreme Court to go into the question, and they have observed that even if viva voce test is prescribed, in addition to the written examination test, to applicants for admission, it could not be said that it was unreasonable or arbitrary. His Lordships Subba Rao, J. at page 382 observed as follows:
In the field of education there are divergent views as regard the mode of testing the capacity and calibre of students in the matter of admissions to colleges. Orthodox educationists stand by the marks obtained by a student in the annual examination. The modern trend of opinion insists upon other additional tests, such as interview, performance in extra-curricular activities, personality test, psychiatric tests etc. Obviously we are not in a position to judge which method is preferable or which test is the correct one.
Learned Counsel for the University has also relied upon the observations of the Calcutta High Court in Samir Kumar v. Someswar Mukherjee wherein also the National Council of Education, Bengal, prescribed three examinations of equivalent standard and the Calcutta University accepted the Final School Standard examination as equivalent to the Matriculation examination of the University. Any student who passed the Final School Standard Examination might be admitted to any college affiliated to the University provided the guardian of the student would make a declaration in writing to the Principal of the College that the student in question had not failed at the Test Examination of any School or the School Final Examination of the Board. The petitioner's father was asked to make that declaration before his son could be regularly admitted into the Ashutosh College in Calcutta. Accordingly, the Calcutta High Court was moved against the order of the University authority to that effect and it was held that although the petitioner might have passed the examination of another institution, whose examination was recognised by the University, but the University was entitled to insist upon observance of a test laid down by it so as to maintain its own standard. It was further held that if the Syndicate made special rules for students who migrated to it from another University that would not constitute discrimination. All categories of students could not be treated alike. To treat students migrating from another University as a separate class, from students passing the University's own examination, was not an unreasonable classification and certainly had a rational basis. To our mind, the argument on behalf of learned Counsel for the University is one of substance. Considering the large number of students outside the Patna University, who may be studying for their Pre-University course, 50 per cent of the seats reserved for the Patna University boys might be rather high, but let us assume that reservation was made to the extent of 25 per cent only and in such an event, the mere fact of reservation of 25 per cent of seats could not be regarded as unreasonable ipso facto, because Patna University being a teaching institution, it is entitled to fill up a certain number of seats with boys who have been admitted in the University at an early stage and should be entitled to a certain advantage in its professional or technical institutions. It is true, no doubt, that Mr. Raman has contended that 50 per cent of seats being reserved for boys passing the Pre-University examination of the Patna University would be high, and more so when the Patna University boys are entitled to take their place in consideration of their case in the general merit list also, but that is matter which is for the University authorities to decide and if the circumstances indicate that the present provision is working hardship upon meritorious boys from other Universities in Bihar or taking other equivalent examinations, the percentage might be reduced, but for a Court of law to strike down the provisions as invalid on the ground that the Patna University authorities would not be justified at all in reserving seats for students of the Patna University can not be accepted as a correct argument. The authority relied upon by Mr. Raman in regard to what is unreasonable classification, therefore, has no bearing on this question because the provision of Sub-clause (i)(a) of Clause 5 of the Ordinance must be judged on its own merits irrespective of the fact whether in a different context, any reservation may be held to be unreasonable and invalid.
6. The next question raised by Mr. Raman relates to Clause (i) of the Ordinance which has been quoted above. His contention upon which he has laid great stress is that the provision as contained in Clause (i) for working out the total marks of an applicant is also unreasonable. He has no objection to the marks obtained in English and in Modern Indian Language being included, because even for a candidate who takes Medical course, the standard of attainment in English or Modern Indian language may be taken into consideration in deciding the eligibility of the applicant for admission. But learned Counsel has been highly critical of the other provision that the marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology should be doubled up for making of the total marks for consideration. This would have the effect of minimising the attainment of candidates in other subjects. In our opinion, however, the argument is without any substance. Medical course is a technical course in which knowledge of subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Biology is undoubtedly more necessary than the knowledge of other subjects which a candidate may have offered for passing the Higher Secondary or, for that matter, Pre-University examination. It can by no stretch of language be held that the emphasis laid upon Physics, Chemistry or Biology is misplaced. It appears that the policy of the University authorities in doubling of the marks in these subjects is to lay stress upon these subjects in preference to other subjects and since this test is applicable to all other applicants, whether passing from Patna University or any other University, it is difficult to say that there is any discrimination involved in this process. In our opinion, therefore, so far as this part of the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is without any substance whatsoever.
7. Learned Counsel has also urged in this connection that 12 girls and 2 boys getting less marks than the petitioner have been admitted by virtue of Sub-clause (i)(a) of Clause 5 of the Ordinance. If, however, the provision of Sub-clause (1) of Clause 5 is upheld as valid, reference to a number of applicants who have succeeded as boys of the Patna University is of no consequence. In Annexure T to the counter-affidavit, 17 names have been mentioned of even girl students, who have obtained marks ranging between 902 and 855, the latter being the aggregate marks obtained by the petitioner and they have not been admitted. By that standard, the petitioner is completely out of picture because of those women candidates and even if the petitioner's contention is accepted, the candidates mentioned in Annexure 'I' to the counter affidavit could be admitted and not the petitioner, which would show that the petitioner has no locus standi. Mr. Raman has, however, contended that this again would, no doubt, be the position, but only if the marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology are doubled up, but otherwise the petitioner would be in the eligible list. As I have already indicated, doubling of the marks obtained by a candidate in science subjects can not be regarded as unreasonable test for admission to the Medical Course. Hence the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner can not be accepted as valid, and applying this test, the petitioner would have no locus standi to maintain this application as she would not be benefited by our striking down the relevant provisions of the Ordinance, the candidates mentioned in Annexure T not having filed any application to this Court.
8. Learned Counsel has also contended that the petitioner was a good sportsman. Reference has been made in various paragraphs to her passing the National Physical Efficiency Test as also the fact that she was declared as best firer in the shooting competition being All India G.D. (J.W.) Shooting Competition, 1963. That may be so. But, according to the Ordinance, so far as it relates to sportsmanship, the candidates concerned must have distinguished themselves as players. In the counter affidavit on behalf of the University, it is pointed out that the petitioner does not fulfil that test. No doubt, the petitioner might come within the general category of sportsman which term is comprehensive and would certainly include an expert firer in shooting test, but that will not necessarily distinguish the applicant as a player. In any case, that is a matter of discretion for the Principal of the College. It is alleged that no one has been admitted on the ground of being a good player and this Court can not hold that the Principal was bound to admit any applicant on that ground and it must be taken to be perfectly legitimate exercise of discretion on his part.
9. As it is, therefore, it must be held that the application can not succeed. It is true no doubt that judged by the attainment of the applicant, she is a person of more than ordinary calibre in several respects, and if the authorities could find their way to admit her, it would have been an act of grace and would have encouraged a meritorious candidate. As it is, however, so far as the legality of the admission is concerned, we are unable to accept the contention raised on her behalf by learned Counsel for the applicant.
10. The application fails and is dismissed.